Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

#677 Oct 13 2011 at 2:29 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Ok, after scanning this thread for the post part, I have a question: what exactly *is* the difference between an officer and an NCO?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#678 Oct 13 2011 at 2:54 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
one is commissioned, one is not.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#679 Oct 13 2011 at 5:18 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
An officer is essentially a military politician. The only reason they still exist within armed forces world over is because of an ancient biblical law (which is currently being toted as "laws of war") that basically says you can't go to war without a small group of people designated as the "leader." It has little to do with actual leadership. Just the designation as such.

The only ones I pretty much automatically respect are pilots and medics.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#680 Oct 13 2011 at 8:47 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,735 posts
What about someone who is a medic and a pilot? Imagine flying a plane while stitching someone up AT THE SAME TIME. I bet he'd get mad kudos.
#681 Oct 13 2011 at 11:25 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Now ask yourself this. Do those professions discriminate against and/or support homosexuality? I never said none others existed, just pointing out the fact of it being a rare minority.
How convenient that you exclude the part where Belkira states any family friendly business could do so as it fits into the image they want to portray.


I didn't leave that out. The point was that any organization that has rules against premarital sex probably doesn't support homosexuality either. Furthermore, that organization probably has a lot of other discriminatory rules and regulations that support some list of morals.

Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Now ask yourself this. Do those professions discriminate against and/or support homosexuality?

Depends on the faith/sect. There's various Protestant faiths that allow homosexual clergy members. There's other faiths which do not.


Read above.

Belkira wrote:

That would make sense if I were claiming to know more than you.


Nope. If you know less than me, then how can you call me out for not knowing anything about the military? You would have to at least know just as much as me in order to do that. That is, unless you know something in particular, maybe from your enlisted relatives. If so, then what is it?

Belkira wrote:

I wasn't planning on it.


Of course you weren't, because you have nothing to say other than you have 3 close enlisted relatives. You have nothing to provide to actually support your claim.

Belkira wrote:

I don't really care to get into it with you, honestly.


Sure.
#682 Oct 13 2011 at 11:39 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Debalic wrote:
Ok, after scanning this thread for the post part, I have a question: what exactly *is* the difference between an officer and an NCO?


The real difference is the following.

Short version: NCO's execute the plan; Officers create the plan

NCOs are non-commissioned officers who enlisted in the military to do a specific job. As a NCO, you are a leader and a personnel manager who ensures that everyone and everything is to standard. Given their previous experience as a junior enlisted (private, specialist,etc), they have a good understanding of how stuff is supposed to be done. They then take that knowledge to assist the Officer in making any plans.

Officers are leaders that are responsible for the planning. At the end of the day, the officer is ultimately responsible for any action that has occurred under his/her command. Officers wear multiple hats and are not trained to do any one task, but be able to LEAD over any task. This is why officers are often made fun of for not knowing anything, because they are not trained to do one task or group of tasks like enlisted are.

*edit* hence why lolGAXE probably likes pilots, because they are specifically trained to fly aircraft x.

The overall concept is that you can't plan and execute. If you try to do that, you will eventually fail. LolGaxe is just expressing his dislike towards officers as many NCOs do. The bottom line is, we can't take away either groups and be successful.

Edited, Oct 14th 2011 8:36am by Almalieque
#683Almalieque, Posted: Oct 14 2011 at 12:38 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Omega,
#684 Oct 14 2011 at 4:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
I accidentally overlooked your post, I'll respond later


Unless you can magically figure out how discrimination solely based upon one's sexual orientation is logically justifiable, I'd rather you didn't.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#685 Oct 14 2011 at 5:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Alma wrote:
I accidentally overlooked your post, I'll respond later


Unless you can magically figure out how discrimination solely based upon one's sexual orientation is logically justifiable, I'd rather you didn't.

Icky.
#686 Oct 14 2011 at 5:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
The point was that any organization that has rules against premarital sex probably doesn't support homosexuality either

Again, some do and some don't. To pick a single example, the Episcopal Church allows for the ordination of homosexual clergy. They also believe that sex should be within the confines of marriage. They require homosexual clergy members to be in lifelong, committed monogamous relationships in lieu of a state-approved marriage because state-approved marriage is not an option in most states.

Acceptance of homosexuality doesn't preclude "a lot of other discriminatory rules and regulations that support some list of morals".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#687 Oct 14 2011 at 6:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
So if we let teh gays be married, the problems go away, right?

Excellent, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Now about those taxes...
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#688 Oct 14 2011 at 6:20 AM Rating: Excellent
We should tax gay marriages.
#689 Oct 14 2011 at 6:27 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
I've got it!!
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#690 Oct 14 2011 at 11:03 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
I'll answer these first

Omegavegeta wrote:
Alma wrote:
I accidentally overlooked your post, I'll respond later


Unless you can magically figure out how discrimination solely based upon one's sexual orientation is logically justifiable, I'd rather you didn't.


There is no magic. I already explained to you in post 206 how. If you're so delusional where you think it's acceptable to discriminate every other single thing about a person, sex, skin color, nationality, weight, height, religion, etc. in the "land of the free" but there is not one single scenario where it is logical to discriminate against sexuality, then the fault is at you.

Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The point was that any organization that has rules against premarital sex probably doesn't support homosexuality either

Again, some do and some don't. To pick a single example, the Episcopal Church allows for the ordination of homosexual clergy. They also believe that sex should be within the confines of marriage. They require homosexual clergy members to be in lifelong, committed monogamous relationships in lieu of a state-approved marriage because state-approved marriage is not an option in most states.

Acceptance of homosexuality doesn't preclude "a lot of other discriminatory rules and regulations that support some list of morals".


..... Reread my point... The key word is "PROBABLY". That doesn't mean 100% all of the time. Unless the organizations you speak of make up the majority of overall such organization, then my claim remains valid. Now you're speaking of a very limited representation.
#691 Oct 14 2011 at 12:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh, so it matters when it works for you and doesn't matter when it doesn't. As long as we're agreed that acceptance of homosexuality doesn't preclude "a lot of other discriminatory rules and regulations that support some list of morals" and vice versa, I have no idea what your point was supposed to be.

If we're not agreed, I'd recommend that you re-read the last couple posts to see where you're wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#692 Oct 14 2011 at 1:38 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Almalieque wrote:
There is no magic. I already explained to you in post 206 how. If you're so delusional where you think it's acceptable to discriminate every other single thing about a person, sex, skin color, nationality, weight, height, religion, etc. in the "land of the free" but there is not one single scenario where it is logical to discriminate against sexuality, then the fault is at you.
Sure there may be a situation where you can discriminate based on sexuality. However the ability to join the United States military is not one of them. If you want to restrict access to the military based on sexuality you must justify this.

In your 206 post:

you stated that homosexual couples would be able to follow different rules then hetero couples. This is false, lolgaxe addressed this, as did I in the post shortly after that you've ignored.

your shower point. If you think homosexuals should have separate showers, feel free to try and get this changed, but seeing as they already shower together, repealing DADT does not change anything, and so this is not a legitimate reason.

Finally, people trying to cheat the system is not a valid reason to discriminate based on sexuality.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#693Almalieque, Posted: Oct 14 2011 at 3:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I've realized the disconnect in our argument, so I'm going to try to summarize this. If there is something left out that you want me to address, then let me know.
#694 Oct 14 2011 at 4:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
That was a lot of typing just to say you're afraid to come out of the closet.

Quote:
So, what's the difference between a woman in a fire fight and a woman in a fire fight?

One's a woman and the other's a woman?
#695 Oct 14 2011 at 4:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Wrong! One's in a fire fight while the other's in a fire fight. It's obvious.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#696 Oct 14 2011 at 4:28 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
By fire fight we mean kitchen, right?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#697 Oct 14 2011 at 4:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Making a ham sandwich.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#698 Oct 14 2011 at 5:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
If your goal is to specifically/exclusively argue to end a specific type of discrimination, then you need to use an argument that is specifically/exclusively for that particular discrimination. Else, you are arguing inclusively for any other discrimination that fits your argument.

That's a pretty flawed bit of logic that gets your whole argument off on an incredibly weak foundation. I've already explained why before but it seems like a gulf too wide for you to cross.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#699 Oct 14 2011 at 5:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If your goal is to specifically/exclusively argue to end a specific type of discrimination, then you need to use an argument that is specifically/exclusively for that particular discrimination. Else, you are arguing inclusively for any other discrimination that fits your argument.

That's a pretty flawed bit of logic that gets your whole argument off on an incredibly weak foundation. I've already explained why before but it seems like a gulf too wide for you to cross.



The gulf between his ears. AMIRITE???

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
#700 Oct 14 2011 at 5:48 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
dp

Edited, Oct 14th 2011 11:25pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#701 Oct 14 2011 at 5:48 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Quote:
I've realized the disconnect in our argument....


I don't think you have.


Quote:
so I'm going to try to summarize this.


nope guess not.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 245 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (245)